PPS: let the objectors who want to pretend that I don’t understand science — as opposed to ideological a prioris imposed on science and flying false colours — first read (link) and (link), then justify their claims as being more than mere dismissive, red herring and strawman caricature tactic talking points. Then, let them get back to the main point: produce and submit the 6,000 word essay.

Hahaha! It's evolutionary science you seem to have a bit of a blind spot with, KF! I think people have spent more than 6,000 words trying to gen you up on it.

Quote

Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside:

Conjurs up an image of an aide whispering in the ear of Don Corleone. "Dis displeases me. He has shown disrespect".

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

CriticalRationalist offers some observations, and is threatened with mini-bannination for some unspecified offence from the pompous-fuckwit-in-the-ceiling:

Quote

CR, you know you have a matter of an unresolved and serious false accusation to be dealt with before trying to participate in threads I own. Final warning in this thread. You know how to resolve the matter if you care to. KF

That's the way to conduct an essay competition! I shall pop some more corn.

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

CriticalRationalist offers some observations, and is threatened with mini-bannination for some unspecified offence from the pompous-fuckwit-in-the-ceiling:

Quote

CR, you know you have a matter of an unresolved and serious false accusation to be dealt with before trying to participate in threads I own. Final warning in this thread. You know how to resolve the matter if you care to. KF

That's the way to conduct an essay competition! I shall pop some more corn.

This is becoming a boringly predictable response from kairosfocus -- when he can't address an argument, essentially every time anyone bothers to address his claims, he gets the vapors over some imagined slight.

kairosfocus is a liar (1), a hypocrite (2), an intellectual coward (3), and a fool (4). And yes, kairosfocus, I can back up every one of those statements.

(1) Example: Claiming to have calculated FSCOI or one of his other alphabet soup acronyms.(2) Example: Continuing to post at UD despite that site being infested by mouth breathing, vulgarity spewing, trolls like Joe and Mung, while complaining about the behavior of people at TSZ.(3) Examples: Refusing to leave the safe haven of UD and banning people from his threads.(4) Example: Pretty much everything he's ever written.

CriticalRationalist offers some observations, and is threatened with mini-bannination for some unspecified offence from the pompous-fuckwit-in-the-ceiling:

Quote

CR, you know you have a matter of an unresolved and serious false accusation to be dealt with before trying to participate in threads I own. Final warning in this thread. You know how to resolve the matter if you care to. KF

That's the way to conduct an essay competition! I shall pop some more corn.

Very interesting use of the word interdict, "a Roman Catholic ecclesiastical censure withdrawing most sacraments and Christian burial from a person or district".

Quote

kairosfocus: CR’s ignoring of an interdict due to false accusations and trying to divert the thread ...

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

CriticalRationalist offers some observations, and is threatened with mini-bannination for some unspecified offence from the pompous-fuckwit-in-the-ceiling:

Quote

CR, you know you have a matter of an unresolved and serious false accusation to be dealt with before trying to participate in threads I own. Final warning in this thread. You know how to resolve the matter if you care to. KF

That's the way to conduct an essay competition! I shall pop some more corn.

Very interesting use of the word interdict, "a Roman Catholic ecclesiastical censure withdrawing most sacraments and Christian burial from a person or district".

Quote

kairosfocus: CR’s ignoring of an interdict due to false accusations and trying to divert the thread ...

Do you know what the probability theoretic term outcome means? Do you understand the concepts of a random variable and a sample space?

And while we’re at it, which of Marks and Dembski’s papers have you read? Did you read the article referenced in the OP? Why do you avoid most of my questions, even when they’re yes/no? Do you not understand them, not know the answer, not like the answer, not want to take the time to type “yes” or “no”, or is it some other reason?

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Joe must like the humiliation. I mean, who does he think he is fooling?

Quote

I will leave you to take care of that and will join Dembski in giving you the “response” you deserve.

That's right Joe, you've learnt the main "trick" behind ID. Never engage with your critics, however reasoned their arguments. However he's not fooling everybody, like JWT:

Quote

To onlookers it looks like you have some issues you have to resolve… Like developing the ability to answer questions.

Joe's reply: Comedy gold.

Quote

@JWTruthInLove,

Any onlookers who think that don’t know anything anyway. So why should I care about know-nothings?

I told R0bb what was wrong with his examples and he can’t take it. I am done- if Dembski wants to chime in to protect his work- if he thinks it is threatened- then let him do it. Why am I in charge of protecting Dembski?

When was the last time Dembski "chimed in" Joe? You've been talking about (for example) FSCIO (or whatever) yet Dembski has never once commented.

A little doubt starting to creep in round the edges Joe?

Yes, you might have think you've told R0bb what was wrong with the examples

Quote

Your random walk search in no way exemplifies anything Dembski and Marks were talking about. Yours is a strawman, period, end of story- and you deserve to be ignored.

but all you really did was show how little you understand what's being discussed. Walking away and "ignoring" the actual issues is somehow preferable to admitting your ignorance.

Yet, Joe, admitting your ignorance is a necessary precondition to fixing that ignorance. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Rather what you should be ashamed of is your behaviour when confronted by that ignorance.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

He knows there is a significant matter of his insistence on slander on the table ... I have left enough to show the problem and will remove further commentary from this unfortunately insistently disruptive and slanderous person. KF

Here's is what was snipped.

Quote

critical rationalist: Would you agree or disagree?

On the other hand, Darwinism is just such a theory. Specifically, its underlying explanation is that this knowledge was created via conjecture, in the form of genetic variation random to any specific problem to solve, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. The result is non-explanatory knowledge.

So, the very idea that Darwinism genuinely created this knowledge is in conflict with John 1:1. They are fundamentally at odds with each other. This is the crux of the issue, which apparently no one recognizes or wants to address.

For example, If John 1:1 does have a great detail of meaning to you, then it would come as no surprise you would fail to see ID’s lack of an explanation for this knowledge as valid criticism – since you presuppose this knowledge cannot be explained in the first place.

IOW, why would you see the lack of an explanation for something that is supposedly impossible to explain as a valid criticism? Why would Darwinism providing an explanation for something that supposedly cannot possibility be explained make it a better explanation?

Nor could you accept any theory that claims to explain what is deemed unexplainable by John 1:1.

Even if we could go back in time and you could empirically “observe” human beings evolving from a common primate ancestor, etc., all the way back, by fast-forwarding to the present, you could always retreat to the claim that this knowledge was somehow front-loaded, rather than created, to remain consistent with John 1:1. This appeal is already being made today.

So, the issue isn’t merely about “observations” – it’s about claims and explanations regarding the growth of knowledge.

While the point is arguable, it's hard to see how it can be considered slander. Similarly with the next comment.

SB: Meanwhile, I will issue a challenge much less daunting than the one KF has presented. Give me one good reason to believe that unguided, naturalistic forces can, or ever did, create a new body plan.

That’s an impossible challenge, as it conflicts with John 1:1, which you believe to be true.

Which is replaced by

Quote

kairosfocus: Removed for cause of willful insistence on slander and refusal to reconcile the matter as a reasonable condition of further participation in UD threads posed by the undersigned. KF

Meanwhile, StephenB makes a stand for free expression.

Quote

StephenB: There is no relationship whatsoever between your inability or unwillingness to make a case for Darwinism and my theological orientation. I can readily understand why KF is deleting your comments.

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

Here’s my not-to-exceed 6000 word essay defending Darwinism. It is my second draft. I examined my first draft in the light of the reasoning exhibited in the essay challenge thread and made the corrections necessary to make it acceptable to the challenge host.

As a preface to my main essay, I would like to apologize for all the millions of people killed by Nazis and Stalinists in the name of evolutionary materialism. There is no way to bring them back, I’d just like to say I’m sorry that the idea of evolution led directly to so much suffering.

I’d like to apologize also for all the precious time wasted defending the indefensible claims of materialistic Darwinism.

In particular I’d like to apologize for the unsupported claims of geologists, particularly the long discredited dogma of uniformitarianism. This seems to be the founding error of materialism and the primary error that led Darwin astray. It was Darwin’s mentor that planted the seed of thought that regular processes over vast periods of time can accumulate to produce large effects.

I would like also to apologize for Darwin’s stubbornness in the face of physical law, ignoring the best physics of his day, that of Lord Kelvin, persisting against evidence, promoting an impossible age for the solar system.

I’m afraid the rest of the essay has proved more difficult to edit to UD standards. I’m working on it.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Does this mean I can toss my “Evolution for Dummies” and “Complete Idiot’s Guide to Evolution” books?

No Mung, those are special books, written just for you and your little friends.

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

Try to compress the works of Shakespear- CSI. Try to compress any encyclopedia- CSI. Even Stephen C. Meyer says CSI is not amendable to compression.

A protein sequence is not compressable- CSI.

Try that sometime, Joe. I think you'll find that Shakespeare (your spelling is uh ... original) compresses to about a half of it's original size. Ditto for an encyclopedia.

If you want something that doesn't compress, try a string of random letters.

P.S. Stephen C. Meyer doesn't know much about compression either.

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

And that is why Lizzie fails to produce CSI- she smuggles in specified complexity by just granting reproduction with variation.

Hey, that CSI is simpler than I thought! I thought it took reproduction with variation that was compared against the environment to see how well the organism containing it reproduces with culling of the new sequence if it doesn't measure up. Now I'm enlightened. Just having reproduction with variation will generate it.

Boy, that Lizzie is dumb! Too bad she doesn't listen to certified geniuses like Joe and Mung. I guess KF and BA77 are probably just completely over her head.

Of course, if CSI is that easy to generate, then Dr.Dr. Dembski is pretty dumb. He thinks it takes an intelligent designer to generate CSI. He should spend more time listening to Joe and Mung and other people who are smarter than he is.

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

And that is why Lizzie fails to produce CSI- she smuggles in specified complexity by just granting reproduction with variation.

Hey, that CSI is simpler than I thought! I thought it took reproduction with variation that was compared against the environment to see how well the organism containing it reproduces with culling of the new sequence if it doesn't measure up. Now I'm enlightened. Just having reproduction with variation will generate it.

Boy, that Lizzie is dumb! Too bad she doesn't listen to certified geniuses like Joe and Mung. I guess KF and BA77 are probably just completely over her head.

Of course, if CSI is that easy to generate, then Dr.Dr. Dembski is pretty dumb. He thinks it takes an intelligent designer to generate CSI. He should spend more time listening to Joe and Mung and other people who are smarter than he is.

Meaning Joe, Mung and the Dr. Dr. are specimens reproduced without variation?

How come Mung and Joe aren't having at it? M insists his all-1's target has CSI; J says it can't because it's about as compressible as they come.

I wonder why he thinks proteins aren't algorithmically compressible? Is it because it's hard to squash a steak?

What about a dimer? Or a helix? or a beta-sheet? Or ...

rhetorical question, of course

as entertaining as it is to set them up so that they each argue the same conclusion from opposite results, if you are expecting these dipshits to be honest about the whole thing you might as well expect Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat to stop trying to download child pr0n from Lou's webpage

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

How come Mung and Joe aren't having at it? M insists his all-1's target has CSI; J says it can't because it's about as compressible as they come.

I wonder why he thinks proteins aren't algorithmically compressible? Is it because it's hard to squash a steak?

What about a dimer? Or a helix? or a beta-sheet? Or ...

rhetorical question, of course

as entertaining as it is to set them up so that they each argue the same conclusion from opposite results, if you are expecting these dipshits to be honest about the whole thing you might as well expect Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat to stop trying to download child pr0n from Lou's webpage

Yeah KF thinks what he thinks would be important if he was someone, which even he must realize is ........sweet fuck all.

His attempt to rise above the hoi poloi as the martinet of Mountserrat by teh innerwebs must mean he's on the end of the queue at the local rumshop's back rooms on race day.

His theme tune starts....

Quote

"Saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand, walking through the streets of Salem in the rain, he was looking for a place called Lee Ho Fook's, going to get a camera and the police commissioner"

Dembski will be remembered as a minor note on some yellowed crumbling dusty flyer under the floorboards of another long dead church.

While Darwin's 300th birthday and all the others in between will be celerbrated for time immemorial.

....Over to you tards at UD keep up the good work science need a good laugh.

Yet another hysterical rant from KF. You can tell that he desperately wants to ban me or demand an apology.

I half expect him to unban me just so he can have the satisfaction of rebanning me or censoring my comments.

post it so i don't have to go there to read it!

Quote

The design inference is very simple, based on the premise that empirical, inductive explanations of the deep unobserved past or the like, are based on traces we observe and known empirically reliable causes that give rise to the same type of result. So, for instance we know on billions of cases that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as key cause. Indeed, the only observed cause, never mind ever so many dubious attempts to cloud the issue. genetic algorithms, from the very statement of a fitness function that points uphill start in a target zone and are chock full of the information built into such. The challenge is to get to such an island of function in a vast sea of configs that quickly exhaust cosmos scale resources without hardly sampling the space of possibilities.

That's the only bit you need to read.

I'm still not sure whether he's thoroughly dishonest or stupidly uncomprehending, or both.

Yet another hysterical rant from KF. You can tell that he desperately wants to ban me or demand an apology.

I half expect him to unban me just so he can have the satisfaction of rebanning me or censoring my comments.

post it so i don't have to go there to read it!

Quote

I see Keiths:

Quote

Unfortunately, dissenters at Uncommon Descent are typically banned or have their comments censored, all for the ‘crime’ of criticizing ID or defending evolution effectively.

That is a statement in willful defiance of duties of care to truth hoping to profit from the false being perceived as true by the intended audience, a slanderous lie — I have linked a definition from Wiki — motivated by bigotry.

The remaining 6000 words are the usual spittle-flecked ranting, fortified with oily red fish. You don't need to read it. You know what it says already.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Yet another hysterical rant from KF. You can tell that he desperately wants to ban me or demand an apology.

I half expect him to unban me just so he can have the satisfaction of rebanning me or censoring my comments.

post it so i don't have to go there to read it!

Quote

The design inference is very simple, based on the premise that empirical, inductive explanations of the deep unobserved past or the like, are based on traces we observe and known empirically reliable causes that give rise to the same type of result. So, for instance we know on billions of cases that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as key cause. Indeed, the only observed cause, never mind ever so many dubious attempts to cloud the issue. genetic algorithms, from the very statement of a fitness function that points uphill start in a target zone and are chock full of the information built into such. The challenge is to get to such an island of function in a vast sea of configs that quickly exhaust cosmos scale resources without hardly sampling the space of possibilities.

That's the only bit you need to read.

I'm still not sure whether he's thoroughly dishonest or stupidly uncomprehending, or both.

Ineducable, certainly

"The challenge is to get to such an island of function in a vast sea of configs that quickly exhaust cosmos scale resources without hardly sampling the space of possibilities."

So then, according to gordo, it must also be impossible for tiny insects or plant seeds to get to an island thousands of miles out to sea unless they're deliberately sent and guided to that particular island by an intelligent designer yhwh.

ETA:

Think about how big the universe is. What are the odds of meteoroids, asteroids, comets, moons, planets, and/or stars colliding with each other in all that space? Yet it happens, a lot. gordo must believe that an intelligent designer yhwh commands and guides all those collisions.

Edited by The whole truth on Oct. 08 2012,15:11

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27